February 14, 2018

"... and to come anywhere near that suggestion is nuts. Be outraged about what’s going on in America. Don’t be ridiculous. In doing her father’s bidding, Ivanka Trump is trying to tell the world that a sexist really wants to empower women, that a racist really cares about equal opportunity and that a narcissistic plutocrat is acting in the high-minded interests of the little people. She’s willfully delusional, totally complicit and compiling one hell of an Instagram feed, which is what she’s ultimately all about. In doing her brother’s bidding, Kim Yo-jong is airbrushing a dictator who authorizes public executions that, according to defectors, must be watched by all adult citizens, so that they can savor the wages of disobedience. She is diverting attention from his roles in the murders of his half brother, who was smeared with a fatal toxin while walking through an airport, and of many senior government officials, slaughtered in grotesque ways. Is it any wonder that she’s making the effort? The alternative, apparently, is being drawn and quartered."

Trump is as evil as Kim, he just hasn't had as much opportunity to exercise it. But every opportunity he has to show his evil, he has enthusiastically embraced. No doubt he would execute his perceived enemies if he thought he could get away with it. I'm sure he's jealous of Kim's military parades and complete control over his citizens. It's perfectly fair to compare the two. Ivanka and Yo-jong have nothing to do with it.

ADDED: What's unusual about "trying to tell the world that a sexist really wants to empower women, that a racist really cares about equal opportunity and that a narcissistic plutocrat is acting in the high-minded interests of the little people"? Let me propose that exactly that could be said about virtually every American politician. I think it's to the credit of all the sexist, racist, narcissistic plutocrats in government that they can occasionally manage to do something that helps women, minorities, and the little people. It's normal to expect the champions of these politicians to point out these positive efforts. That the doers of these good deeds were hampered by their deeply embedded and not-pretty human impulses could be pointed out as a reason to be impressed by their accomplishments, but their champions choose to keep quiet about such things. That's also not surprising.

Both Bruni and the commenter are simply deranged. His version of PDT is a complete hallucination. What will they say when after 4 or 8 years of Trump the nation is more prosperous, more equal, less rancorous, and more successful abroad than ever under Obama?

Hillary is as evil as Kim, she just hasn't had as much opportunity to exercise it. But every opportunity she has to show his evil, she has enthusiastically embraced. No doubt she would execute her perceived enemies if he thought she could get away with it. I'm sure she's jealous of Kim's military parades and complete control over his citizens. It's perfectly fair to compare the two.

Wilfully delusional and totally complicit - describes the media and Obama and the media and the left. The fact that a few on the left like Bruni can see how insane they look when they refuse to draw distinctions -- like all unwanted advances reflected in #Metooism is the same -- at least shows some awareness. Not so with the sans culottes who run with the comments mob.

The Left has gone completely insane. It really is frightening to see the derangement. More frightening in that many are in positions of real power.

Given the reigns of government they would gleefully descend into intolerant repression and genocide. They call conservatives Nazis, however that is really just projection. Blaming others for what THEY really want to do. They would see nothing wrong in instituting a regime of repression in the name of their ideologies, because they are so totally sure of their perfect correctness.

Trump is as evil as Kim, he just hasn't had as much opportunity to exercise it

Trump's far from a saint, but good lord. The left is really is deranged beyond recovery if they really, truly believe that Trump is remotely in the ball park of Kim.

Obviously you can never really know what's in a persons heart, you have to go by their actions. Trump is a flashy, garish, real estate developer/reality TV star. He can be impulsive and a bit boorish. But nothing I've seen or heard about the guy has ever suggested he'd be the sort of person who would march people into death camps or beget anything like the hellish human misery of North Korea.

And I'm still waiting for someone to show me evidence that Trump is either RAAAAAACCCCCIIIIIST!!! or Sexist... Trump may tend to objectify women from a sexual standpoint, but that's not the same as sexism or misogyny. And whatever his abstract, alpha-male sexual perception of women may or may-not be, he sure seems to hire quite a few of them for high-level positions of power and responsibility... I'd say that's pretty much the opposite of sexism...

What will they say when after 4 or 8 years of Trump the nation is more prosperous, more equal, less rancorous, and more successful abroad than ever under Obama?

Exactly what they say now and have said before. The all insane people are impervious to reason and empiricism, that's what being insane means. Nothing will fix them, therefore they must be isolated, marginalized, and barred from the national conversation.

As disagreeable as the sentiment may be, I'd like to think Althouse commenters have enough of a sense of community to join me in congratulating Robert Cook for having the highest rated comment on a NYT column.

After reading that article, I get the strange sense that the writer has to go very far afield indeed in bashing Trump & associates to hopefully coax his zealot readers into stepping back from the proverbial ledge and leaping into pure absurdity.

Just how much of these opinion articles are actually regarding the person's opinion, I wonder? I wonder what the writers *actual* viewpoint is - I doubt he'll make it public.

Once again we see the triple somersault, 180-degree twist, word-reversal flip trick* performed by the left.

It was just a bit more than a dozen years ago that critics bemoaned that the word "evil" was used to describe countries that supported & encouraged & cheered the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil (just google "critic axis of evil speech) & asserted that such a charge would result in more terrorist activity, etc., but now the word "evil" is used in the most casual manner to describe a sitting U.S. president who has perpetrated nothing adverse to America's national interests, but who has expressed an aspiration for America to peaceably recover the domestic and international economic and political stature that it once enjoyed.

As I've seen written, it's clear that with these people history began yesterday.

What FWBuff said... I have given up trying to discuss Trump with my liberal friends. I never would have imagined they could be so decidedly obnoxious. They really believe the endless propaganda at MSNBC that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election and that Mueller is going to prove it, if only he doesn't get fired by Trump. The investigation will probably continue for Trump's entire presidency or at least until the next election. Sad.

One amusing related article I saw yesterday was about Bill and Melinda Gates and how much they despise Trump and everything he stands for and how they now are going to focus on dealing with poverty in the USA, which sounds a lot like Trump's American First philosophy.

Trump's sons, Don Jr., and Eric, are the epitome of murderers and evildoers. They shoot exotic, and endangered animals in caged hunts in Africa and elsewhere for fun and sport. They've had their pictures take with the body parts of those animals. They are heartless monsters. Don Jr. is a traitor as well, having worked with Russian operatives to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.What should the penalty be for their heinous acts? Life in prison without the possibility of parole is appropriate for being serial killers of endangered species. I'd rather they rot in prison than be executed. I believe in executing the criminally insane, however. I hate crazy people to begin with.

That is a low blow to Robert Cook! I have read these comments for a long time, and I have never heard him indicate that Trump is anything like a homicidal tyrant, nor have I heard him praise Kim Jung Un. Nor do I remember him getting mooshy over mass killings.

The fawning over Kim Yo-Jung by what is supposed to be our more sane news outlets is sickening. I have read nothing like that from Robert Cook.

Don Jr. is a traitor as well, having worked with Russian operatives to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.

Care to educate us on how Don Jr. had the power to do this? or how a meeting with some Russian operatives would influence all the deplorables to not show up for poor poor innocent Private Server Hillary?

How is it that Hillary and Obama were able to make all sorts of business deals with Russia, involving Uranium sales and Clinton Foundation deposits that coincided with those sales, without our knowledge, but a meeting between Don Jr. and some "Russian operatives" is proof that the election was stolen!?

It wasn't Trump (or a Republican) who attempted mass murder of his political "enemies" on a baseball diamond. It isn't Trump (or the Republicans) dressing in black, rioting in the streets and declaiming "by any means necessary" in their zeal to overturn an election.

"Trump is as evil as Kim, he just hasn't had as much opportunity to exercise it. But every opportunity he has to show his evil, he has enthusiastically embraced. No doubt he would execute his perceived enemies if he thought he could get away with it. I'm sure he's jealous of Kim's military parades and complete control over his citizens. It's perfectly fair to compare the two. Ivanka and Yo-jong have nothing to do with it."

I hope that all of those upvoting Times-reading people have the courage of their convictions and the decency to send back their extra tax cut money to the IRS at the end of the year. Not that I'm really expecting it, but if they hate Trump and the eeeeeevil Republicans so badly, they shouldn't profit from anything the Republicans do.

Bruni and his fellow left wing agitators are hoping to persuade the weak-minded among us (e.g., Trumpit) towards violence against Donald Trump and other Republicans, at which point he and they will put up their hands, palms out, and put on their most innocent expressions. “Who, us?”

Because the Left expects the worst, they can declare Trump a tyrant on actions he's never ever taken. They think the same thing of Pence: If he were president, then he would run a theocracy. This is their notion of science. If you can worry about it, then it must be true.

@Gahrie, Stop trolling me, you offensive dullard. Get a job, you sloth. Contribute to the betterment of society somehow. Stop killing animals, and stuffing you face with their body parts. You have no artistic qualities whatsoever, only predictable reactionary beliefs and corresponding bonehead blather.

Trump is just a symbol. Trump was not "evil" pre-politics, he was a mascot of sorts, a court jester, a benign sort of joke. A member of their club.

He became profoundly evil in their eyes when he was elected by those whom they truly fear and hate and at least pretend to despise, the rest of you Americans. Its not Trump, its you.

All this madness re Trump is strictly tribal enmity. You are your tribe, they are another tribe, and your interests, as in how you make a living, your ideal way of life, your beliefs, your values in terms of sin and virtue, are entirely opposed and irreconcilable.

I’ve long suspected that the NYT and other obsolete media are the targets of a paid commentariat. Performance artists in the style of Trumpit. It certainly explains the over-the-top hatred and stupidity.

I hope they’re getting paid that magical minimum wage of $15/hr.

I likewise believe that obsolete media doesn’t even know it’s being hammered (and its reputation trashed even further) by paid shill-troll flunkies.

I'll add that many people these days (emphatically including but by no means limited to the left) have me wondering how full of hate and rage you can be and still think you're the good guy. I'm appreciating more and more the people on any side, e.g. Cook, who aren't like that.

I.e., they are not insane. They have good reasons to consider you enemies and vice versa. Irreconcilable differences. If this were a marriage it would be in the middle of a nasty divorce action. And much that would be, and is, being said in the course of it is self-serving nonsense.

Damn, I should remember to record the Wednesday noon tornado siren test. On days when the ground isn't solar-heated (so sound hugs the ground), you can hear a dozen towns at different distances starting at different times.

If you believe what that person commented on the NYT article then don't you believe that the Obama Administration, FBI, and DOJ surveillance of Trump and the charges of Russian collusion and obstruction of justice are all morally justified? Sort of like that old ethics question game: if you could go back in time to kill (choose your evil person: Hitler, Pol Pot, Lee Harvey Oswald) shouldn't you?

I just can't square the real world Trump with the one his most agitated and concerned opponents describe.

That the doers of these good deeds were hampered [by] their deeply embedded and not-pretty human impulses could be pointed out as a reason to be impressed by their accomplishments, but their champions choose to keep quiet about such things. That's also not surprising.

Perhaps the story of humanity is that many good things have been accomplished by deeply flawed people. After all, there's no such thing as an avatar of pure good to lead us. Even in there were, such an individual would be both unelectable and unwilling. Voters want a leader that doesn't exist, so politicians pretend to be that person and voters then select whomever they find to be the most convincing pretender. Then voters feel forced to defend their selection when a bit of the mask falls away from their selection.

Perhaps it would be better if more people realized that you actually don't need anything close to a saint to actually accomplish good things. In fact you can have a person who is crass and rude and vulgar, a proven liar, and a lout, and despite all that such a person could still do far more good than harm (assuming the right level of accountability within the system). But it seems like most human beings are happier deluding themselves and resorting to tedious tribalism or team sportism rather than coldly and objectively looking at the world for what it is rather than how they wish it to be.

Big Mike said...Trumpit writes the way those homeless panhandlers I used to meet on the streets talk.

2/14/18, 11:07 AM

A homeless panhandler who is seriously protein deficient. Since you're clearly not getting enough complete protein to eat, Trumpit, I recommend having a nice, juicy hamburger every so often. It'll do wonders to clear up that mental confusion and improve your mood.

It's one thing to view a certain set of facts differently. It's another to live in totally different realities. The most insane things I've read come from the self proclaimed enlightened and educated. They are a large percentage of the population, and hold positions of power and influence.

Keep that in mind when you hear a "republican" talk about compromise with these people.

Remember, folks, Frank Bruni is at least trying to drag his readership toward some semblance of rationality. Poor Bruni. A good liberal, gay, theater critic, he probably now wakes up every morning & asks himself "So, how did I somehow get turned into Ross Douthat?".

Another comment from one of those terrible liberal NYT readers:Thanks for this piece of rationality. Trump’s bad, Ivanka is sad, but the North Korean leadership (whether Kim Jung-un or his sister) implement a system of abuse and brutality upon their own people—and belligerence to their neighbors near and far—the likes of which few dictatorships have managed.

"No doubt he would execute his perceived enemies if he thought he could get away with it."

I have to admit, I think the same about Hillary. When I thought she was going to be elected, I also thought that there was a good chance I would be executed on my doorstep by a government agent as a result. But I don't think Trump has ever referred to his "perceived enemies" as a "basket of deplorables".

They're Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, congruent, and unreconciled, prone to conflation of logical domains, and admission of facts not in, or contrary to, evidence. Everyone has their faith, religion, and tradition. As well as philosopher(s) and expert(s) who are mortal, mortal gods, or divine. Principles matter.

Let me propose that exactly that could be said about virtually every American politician. I think it's to the credit of all the sexist, racist, narcissistic plutocrats in government that they can occasionally manage to do something that helps women, minorities, and the little people.

It’s been over 45 years now, but I once dated a nutritionist who insisted that the problem wasn’t just lack of protein, but a lack of animal fats. Apparently you need animal fats to maintain the myelin sheath on the neurons in your brain and nervous system. Sounded plausible.

Trumpit said..."Trump's sons, Don Jr., and Eric, are the epitome of murderers and evildoers. They shoot exotic, and endangered animals in caged hunts in Africa and elsewhere for fun and sport. They've had their pictures take with the body parts of those animals. They are heartless monsters."

"Trump is as evil as Kim, he just hasn't had as much opportunity to exercise it. But every opportunity he has to show his evil, he has enthusiastically embraced. No doubt he would execute his perceived enemies if he thought he could get away with it."

Once again the Resistance dials it up to 11 and loses all credibility.

How does the writer know that Trump is evil if he has not done anything evil?

Quaestor said...What will they say when after 4 or 8 years of Trump the nation is more prosperous, more equal, less rancorous, and more successful abroad than ever under Obama?

Exactly what they say now and have said before. The all insane people are impervious to reason and empiricism, that's what being insane means. Nothing will fix them, therefore they must be isolated, marginalized, and barred from the national conversation.

**********************************

Has any society anywhere thrived when a large percentage of its population has revealed itself to be bat-shit crazy, yet impotent to actually revolt (having disarmed themselves)?

Bruno and his top commentator are not a unique breed. Their like filled the ranks of the Cheka and manned Pol Pots killing factories. Their hunger to inflict death on their political adversaries is palpable.

Trump is as evil as Kim, he just hasn't had as much opportunity to exercise it

Trump's far from a saint, but good lord. The left is really is deranged beyond recovery if they really, truly believe that Trump is remotely in the ball park of Kim.

Obviously you can never really know what's in a persons heart, you have to go by their actions. Trump is a flashy, garish, real estate developer/reality TV star. He can be impulsive and a bit boorish. But nothing I've seen or heard about the guy has ever suggested he'd be the sort of person who would march people into death camps or beget anything like the hellish human misery of North Korea.

"Trump is as evil as Kim, he just hasn't had as much opportunity to exercise it. But every opportunity he has to show his evil, he has enthusiastically embraced. No doubt he would execute his perceived enemies if he thought he could get away with it. I'm sure he's jealous of Kim's military parades and complete control over his citizens. It's perfectly fair to compare the two. Ivanka and Yo-jong have nothing to do with it."

This is mainstream thought in the democrat party.

Most of their voters believe this.

It is time for people to wake up. They are projecting what they would do onto us. A majority of democrats support Obama spying on a political opponent.

Has any society anywhere thrived when a large percentage of its population has revealed itself to be bat-shit crazy, yet impotent to actually revolt (having disarmed themselves)?

You could have stopped at "thrived". The societies that exist today are all relatively young. In general, societies do NOT thrive in the long run. They all eventually fail, and ours is showing signs of doing just that.

As I may have put in a comment before: a wise sage once said about humanity, "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."

It is sad these articles keep being posted in the NYT, while people like Scott Adams (and he claims other agree) that is moral to kill a person you think is the next Hitler. Even sadder that despite having this opinion, few recognize the Kim's for what they are.

I never said anything about what "the left" thinks or feels about anything, because I think that construction is rather meaningless. Except for the broadest of strokes and the widest of generalities can anyone really say anything about "the left" or "the right."

What I did say, however, is that large majorities of the American public have very negative views of North Korea in general and Kim Jug-Un in particular. There are plenty of surveys of public opinion demonstrating this, and a New York Times commenter does not refute that in the least.

I think it's a lot more important to focus on the actual policies and strategies being pursued and what their predictable outcomes would be rather than the stupid talk radio/cable news obsession with "the left" and "the right."

But on the subject of media coverage, the administration, and bad regimes, can I ask what should be made of a photo such as this, with Jared and Ivanka smiling and celebrating with Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman. Just to recap, the Crown Prince is the heir apparent to the absolute monarchy that despotically controls Saudi Arabia, he engaged in imprisonment, torture, and execution of dissidents and regime opponents, he is responsible for major war crimes in Yemen, including a blockade specifically intended to starve the population, he has empowered jihadists through proxy war support, including Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, and Jund al-Aqsa, all salafi jihadist groups, and has contributed massively to destabilization in the region by ginning up conflicts with Qatar (home toimportant US military resources in the region) and Lebanon.

See...if we were all as educated and knowledgeable as J. Farmer, we'd realize that everyone we consider an ally is actually evil and that everyone we consider an enemy is actually just misunderstood boy scouts, and that every problem in the world is ultimately the fault of the USA.

Just to recap, the Crown Prince is the heir apparent to the absolute monarchy that despotically controls Saudi Arabia, he engaged in

Yes, yes, MBS is very bad. Latest SOB of a long line of SOBs, to be sure. Right? (You're not picking him out in particular, it's the whole House of Saud regime, or did you like/favor/better appreciate KSA or its ruler at some time in the past?)

So MBS, or KSA, or both, are bad. The fact that they serve our interests (however equivocally), whereas DPRK is an existential foe, is not important to you, because your heart is pure. Nothing should or can be done about DPRK, because nothing can or should be done about KSA?

Or, if we were prepared to, say, overturn both regimes, and Iran too, and replace them with, oh, forty-year regencies under distinguished American killer generals like Mattis or McChrystal, till their children can be civilized, or whatever you want done to them...

No good, because we're not prepared to fix "Africa" too? At the same time?

You provoke annoyance because nobody can figure you out. The only thing you seem consistent in, is that the US may not take action against its enemies, and has no friends.

You always have lots of stats in your pocket, but any sophist has the appropriate weapons. We're trying to understand your actual motivations here.

I'd settle for an understanding of the future world your policies would bring about, or seek to bring about. That would define you without putting you to the trouble of giving a name to yourself.

Of course you have no particular motivation to satisfy me, but I daresay I am not alone.

"What I have said, consistently, is that the threat North Korea poses is exaggerated and manageable."

And no doubt you will continue to say it right up until the moment one of Whoa Fat!'s nukes destroys one or more large American cities. At which point you will drop the "exaggerated" and just go with "manageable".

I just gave you a summation of the Crown Prince's record. Did I get something wrong? Perhaps you can explain to us how going all in on the Saudi Arabia has redounded to our benefit.

I thought you were the one who opposed morality in our foreign policy? It should only be based in self-interest. Before fracking it was in the interests of the U.S. to be friendly with Saudi Arabia, and today it is in our interests to build a broad opposition to the Iranians including Saudi Arabia. (of course you disagree that the Iranians are our enemies)

And no doubt you will continue to say it right up until the moment one of Whoa Fat!'s nukes destroys one or more large American cities. At which point you will drop the "exaggerated" and just go with "manageable".

Close. What he will actually do is explain why North Korea was perfectly justified in nuking one of our cities.

And no doubt you will continue to say it right up until the moment one of Whoa Fat!'s nukes destroys one or more large American cities.

No, as I'd admit I was terribly, miserably, pathetically wrong. It wouldn't be the first time or the last. But so long as we're pulling hypotethicals out of our asses, why not worry about an American city being destroyed by a Chinese nuke? Or a Pakistani nuke? Or a Russian nuke? Or hell even an Indian nuke? Any of those countries launching a nuclear bomb against us is "possible," but do we conduct our foreign policies with those countries as if that is an at all remotely possible event? No. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that North Korea would pose a unique set of dangers. For one, North Korea has prioritized regime survival above and beyond nearly every other consideration. Hence, they are one of the most diplomatically isolated countries in the world. The notion that they would prioritize such survival and then immediately launch a nuclear weapon that would get them nothing but utter destruction in return is absurdity.

But so long as we're pulling hypotethicals out of our asses, why not worry about an American city being destroyed by a Chinese nuke? Or a Pakistani nuke? Or a Russian nuke? Or hell even an Indian nuke?

Many of us do, only to have you tell us we're being paranoid.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe that North Korea would pose a unique set of dangers.

Except for the fact that North Korea is run by a family of insane people who believe they are gods.

If they are so obsessed with survival, why do they regularly provoke the United States and South Korea by attacking them and killing their soldiers?

The fact that they serve our interests (however equivocally), whereas DPRK is an existential foe, is not important to you, because your heart is pure.

Please explain which of "our interests" is served by Saudi Arabia. Also, North Korea does not pose an "existential" threat to America. There are really only two states--China and Russia--that pose what could be called an existential threat to America. Yet, no one seems worried that they will destroy us. Why? While the North Koreans could inflict a significant blow to America (and be destroyed in response) they could not destroy the country.

The only thing you seem consistent in, is that the US may not take action against its enemies, and has no friends.

Depends on how we are defining "enemies" and what those "actions" are. Yes, I am consistently opposed to stupid American military adventurism that does not involve vital American interests. I am also consistently opposed to threat inflation. To quote Daniel Larsion writing in The American Conservative: "Threat inflation is one of the most pervasive and harmful parts of our foreign policy discourse. Manageable threats are blown out of proportion, deterrable adversaries are transformed into irrational, unstoppable menaces, and limited dangers are exaggerated beyond recognition. That not only encourages ever-higher levels of unnecessary military spending, but it also generates unwarranted fear about the security of the country."

I would say that is a nice summation of my view of American foreign policy.

We're trying to understand your actual motivations here.

Who cares? That is an ad hominem fallacy. Even if I was motivated 100% by irrational, rabid anti-Americanism, it would make no difference to the validity of any argument I made.

I'd settle for an understanding of the future world your policies would bring about, or seek to bring about. That would define you without putting you to the trouble of giving a name to yourself.

I have defined my political worldview many times on this blog. I am an America First nationalist and have been that way for nearly 20 years. As I have disclosed before, my first vote in a presidential election was in 2000 for Pat Buchanan.

Identity a single straw man I have invoked? Whose arguments do you believe I am not reconstructing faithfully?

Except for the fact that North Korea is run by a family of insane people who believe they are gods.

If they are so obsessed with survival, why do they regularly provoke the United States and South Korea by attacking them and killing their soldiers?

There is zero evidence that Kim Jung-in is "insane." Cruel and brutal, yes, but that does not mean he is irrational. And to answer your second question, regime survival is not at stake in those skirmishes. Both sides no it, because neither side has an appetite for war.

To return a question to you, if deterrence cannot work against the North, why has it worked thus far? What has stopped Kim from unleashing artillery fire against Seoul, or marching an army across the DMZ?

To return a question to you, if deterrence cannot work against the North, why has it worked thus far? What has stopped Kim from unleashing artillery fire against Seoul, or marching an army across the DMZ?

"No doubt he would execute his perceived enemies if he thought he could get away with it". Perhaps it's true, and perhaps the same could be said of all his predecessors. Power has a way of corrupting people. Good thing we have a Constitution that restrains the power of the President. A number of courts have ruled against Trump's actions. How many of those rulings has he ignored? You'd think the people complaining now would be a little more appreciative of that old document.

First, nobody is talking about "isolationism." That's just a lazy slur hurled at people on the anti-interventionist side. Second, America has never really "tried isolationism." That is a bit of a folk myth. To quote George C. Herring, author of From Colony to Superpower, "The idea of an isolationist America, still included in some textbooks, is one of the great myths of United States history. For good reasons, the nation for its first century and a half did pursue a unilateralist foreign policy, avoiding alliances that would restrict its freedom of action or entangle it in wars. But it was never strictly isolationist." You can also see The Myth of American Isolationism

We should withdraw from Asia and leave it as a Chinese sphere of influence. Throw the Japs a few nukes and let them remilitarize. They can be the Asian Israel.

The rest of them can fend for themselves. They don't have resources we want to exploit so let them fight like crabs in a bucket. Don't send our boys to die for some coolie who hates our guts anyway.

We can make economic deals with China. Let the Norks be their problem. We gain nothing by being involved. This Game of Thrones bullshit is so 1800's. Rudyard Kipling has been dead for a long fucking time.

Accepting that answer would mean jettisoning your formulation of an insane, irrational actor. It would be very unusual for insane, irrational people to be motivated by economic or material self-interest if you do not believe they are motivated to by self-preservation.

That's a complete non sequitur. You're obviously not familiar with the book I referenced or the article I linked. I know of no major expert in American diplomatic history who believes the "isolationist" urban legend. But again, if you want to criticize the argument, make a counterargument. So, for example, perhaps you can describe to us a period of American foreign policy that was "isolationist."

"But so long as we're pulling hypotethicals out of our asses, why not worry about an American city being destroyed by a Chinese nuke? Or a Pakistani nuke? Or a Russian nuke? Or hell even an Indian nuke?"

I worry a fair amount about the Chi-Coms and the Russians, but those trains have left the station, and at present those countries appear to be deterred. Pakistan, India, Israel, all have nukes, but they do not appear to be attempting to develop ICBMs that would enable them to use those weapons against us. Iran and North Korea are attempting to develop the ability to attack us, and have expressed the intention of doing so when and if possible.

Blogger J. Farmer said..."... North Korea has prioritized regime survival above and beyond nearly every other consideration. Hence, they are one of the most diplomatically isolated countries in the world. The notion that they would prioritize such survival and then immediately launch a nuclear weapon that would get them nothing but utter destruction in return is absurdity."

As you point out, North Korea prioritizes *REGIME* survival. The US has never posed a potential threat to the Nork regime, so long as they have their Chi-Com protectors. But that has not prevented the regime from pursuing nuclear weapons and ICBMs. And if you really believe that their frequent military attacks against South Korea and their campaign of espionage against Japan are indications that they are "deterred", you are as crazy as they are. The fact that they express their desire for survival in a way that isolates them diplomatically simply shows that they are dangerously out of touch with reality.

Bottom line, the Norks do what they do for internal reasons that make no sense whatsoever to anyone else. Yet you are prepared to bet several American cities on their sanity. What is sane about the Norks? Torturing cheerleaders? Compulsory attendance at public executions? Kidnapping expeditions to Japan?

"We should withdraw from Asia and leave it as a Chinese sphere of influence. Throw the Japs a few nukes and let them remilitarize. They can be the Asian Israel.

The rest of them can fend for themselves. They don't have resources we want to exploit so let them fight like crabs in a bucket. Don't send our boys to die for some coolie who hates our guts anyway."

The problem is that the Norks are building ICBMs that can reach America. And North Korea is an increasingly unstable regime. I suspect that the last few American administrations have placed their hopes on that latter point, and perhaps justifiably. But it no longer appears likely that the regime will collapse before it has ICBMs capable of reaching the US. And once it has them, we can no longer regard the regime's instability as someone else's problem.

If we pull our hostages out of South Korea and scale back our commitment then the cause belli of the Norks really goes away. It seems that the South Koreans love them some Nork like it was dog meat or something. Lets leave them to work it out under the benevolent gaze of the Chinese. It should be their sphere of influence anyway. Our supply line is way to long to get in a war on the land mass of Asia. Again.

The absolute worse thing that could happen is that South Korea's economy turns to shit so we have one less trading rival. I mean are we worried about them becoming communists or something? The communists have become our best trading partners.

langford peel said..."If we pull our hostages out of South Korea and scale back our commitment then the cause belli of the Norks really goes away."

Hmmmm... in the not-distant future, everyone in North America will be a hostage to North Korean ICBMs. Where do you propose to relocate us to? Are you confident that a unilateral American show of weakness will convince the Norks to stop building ICBMs?

What I did say, however, is that large majorities of the American public have very negative views of North Korea."

Hey, man, you were right: your "large majorities" just include the concerned left, so concerned that they hate Kim as much as Trump. Which means they really, really hate him. As you correctly stated about the American public in general.

I remember how Saddam was going to take over the Oil Supply and choke our economy. What did we get out of that?

Al Qaeda. The Taliban. ISIS. 911.

When if we had just let Saddam topple the House of Saud at worst we would have spent more on gas until we got our fracking going. At best he would have settled Iran's hash or they would have been fighting it out these past few decades killing each other instead of the thousands of the best of our country being killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight.

Now the same geniuses in the Deep State that brought us Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan say we have to do something about North Korea. Because they might someday develop ICBMs.

Maybe they will use those ICBMS to kill and eat Belgium babies or something.

The problem here is categorical thinking. It cannot be true that one harbors some small hint of racism: he is a pure racist, same as Hitler. It cannot be true that a politician, for perhaps dubious reasons (like getting elected) does good things: everything he touches is impure. I tend to view politicians as all deranged narcissists, yet am happy to give credit when they do something I like (which I do not define as "good", merely my policy preference).

"Hmmmm... in the not-distant future, everyone in North America will be a hostage to North Korean ICBMs. Where do you propose to relocate us to? Are you confident that a unilateral American show of weakness will convince the Norks to stop building ICBMs? "

So weakness is the problem? What's the matter are you worried about the size of your dick.

Look we need to treat this the way the cops are treating Baltimore. Pull back your patrols and let the natives fight it out. If they venture out you smash them. If they actually develop ICBMS you tell the Chinks to intervene or you bomb them back to the Stone Age. But don't leave our troops there as a trip wire. As hostages. Let the Koreans stand on their own too feet. The Japs too. We don't have to be the worlds policeman.

I have no problem with a realist approach that assesses state interest in terms of an absolute preference for regime survival.

I do have a problem with discounting the threat posed by nuclear weapons entirely. The old conventional deterrence is one thing; we could live with it, but also made it an overriding goal of our policy to prevent nuclearization. The conventional deterrence held, but the antinuclear policy failed.

That presents a new situation and a new problem, not simply same old same old. By raising the potential costs of misjudging NK, of being "wrong," Kim forces us to respond. The initial response should be tightening sanctions, as it is. But a long-term threat against the U.S., by Kim or an "irrational" replacement, is not acceptable.

Pakistan, India, Israel, all have nukes, but they do not appear to be attempting to develop ICBMs that would enable them to use those weapons against us.

This is not true. India already has an ICBM, the so called Agni missile, and is attempting to develop longer range ICBMs as well as submarine-launched capability. Israel also has an ICBM, the Jericho 3, and Pakistan is attempting to develop one, the so called Taimur missile, though there is some skepticism about how far along this project is.

The US has never posed a potential threat to the Nork regime, so long as they have their Chi-Com protectors.

First, the US has 25,000 troops in South Korea, has a mutual defense pact with South Korea, and coordinates and integrates military services. It is expected that the North would perceived that as a threat. If China signed a treaty with Mexico, stationed troops in Mexico, and began integrating the Mexican military with their own, we would (rightly) consider that a highly provocative act.

Second, I think it is wrong to believe that North Korea sees China as their "protectors." For one, Korea has a long history, of which it is acutely aware, of being a vassal state to China. There are significant issues between the two countries and the arrangement is largely one of shared interests.

And if you really believe that their frequent military attacks against South Korea and their campaign of espionage against Japan are indications that they are "deterred", you are as crazy as they are.

Let me respond to that by way of an example. The fact that the US and the Soviet Union engaged in sabotage and espionage between each other does not mean that the two sides were not "deterred" from going to war with each other. Because they were. Similarly, North Korean's provocative actions are not evidence that they are not deterred. If anything, they are evidence for deterrence. North Korea has to rely on such provocations because it knows it has no recourse to larger military engagement. A question I ask repeatedly is what has kept North Korea from firing artillery into Seoul or sending its forces across the DMZ?

Bottom line, the Norks do what they do for internal reasons that make no sense whatsoever to anyone else. Yet you are prepared to bet several American cities on their sanity.

Your first sentence is not true. There are plenty of resources available that provide reporting and commentary on North Korea. Yes, a lot of the regime is shrouded in secrecy, but the major motives and strategic desires are pretty well understood. And as for the notion of betting "several American cities," you're already betting the entire country (if not the world) that Russia and China will not launch. Should we make denuclearization of Russia and China a major part of US foreign policy?

And North Korea is an increasingly unstable regime.

What is the evidence that the regime is "increasingly unstable?"

But it no longer appears likely that the regime will collapse before it has ICBMs capable of reaching the US.

So it is "increasingly unstable" but "no longer appears likely" to collapse. Okay. If the regime did collapse, why would we presume the outcome would automatically be something better?

I would say that those dangers are exaggerated and manageable.

Except historically the "dangers" of war tend to be systemically understated prior to the engagement of conflict. See, for example, Americans at the start of the Civil War, Europeans at the start of WWII, and Americans again in North Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

I do have a problem with discounting the threat posed by nuclear weapons entirely.

Entirely? When did I say they posed no threat? I said that the threat is overstated. That this overstated threat is used to justify the US continuing to pursue a counterproductive approach to the problem is all the more worrying. And given America's recent propensity for jumping head first into military conflicts to solve international problems, we should be very apprehensive about behavior that takes us closer down that path with North Korea.

The old conventional deterrence is one thing; we could live with it, but also made it an overriding goal of our policy to prevent nuclearization. The conventional deterrence held, but the antinuclear policy failed.

The "old conventional deterrence" worked at a time when the world was significantly more dangerous than it is now. The "antinuclear policy failed" decades ago. That is not a new situation. From China and Israel's acquisition in the mid-1960s, to India and Pakistan's in the late 1990s, to North Korea's now. That said, there has been some denuclearization (e.g. Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa, etc.).

By raising the potential costs of misjudging NK, of being "wrong," Kim forces us to respond. The initial response should be tightening sanctions, as it is. But a long-term threat against the U.S., by Kim or an "irrational" replacement, is not acceptable.

The sanctions route has historically been a failure. North Korea is already one of the most sanctioned and isolated countries in the world. The best way for deescalating the situation remains diplomatic engagement in which the US is prepared to offer some significant concessions to the North Koreans in exchange for limitations on their nuclear weapon capacity.

"North Korea has to rely on such provocations because it knows it has no recourse to larger military engagement."

Rely on them for what? For obtaining it's minimum daily requirement of dead foreigners? If North Korea's actions make sense, it is only in terms of some inscrutable internal power dynamic. What North Korean "interest" is served by continually provoking the US and South Korea? Why are you certain that this interest will continue to be served by random minor attacks that kill what you regard as an acceptable number of the rest of us?

The problem is the threat has increased, hence the potential costs have increased, hence our calculations must adapt. Since the potential costs have increased, including the cost of mere error on our part or theirs, the relative benefit of a new containment regime or of regime removal has increased as well. Which is, of course, not to discount other costs attending those actions.

But diplomatic engagement has failed just as miserably as sanctions. The previous "exchanges" did nothing to deescalate. SK tried sunshine.

Of course, the point of the previous exchanges was to prevent nuclearization. Now the goalpost are being moved to "limit" them. That is not encouraging.

If the Norks calculate that they need nuclear weapons as the ultimate regime protector, then no concessions will limit that existential tool. We may make concessions anyway, if only because we may decide it is the least-costly near-term step, but precedent does not inspire confidence.

"Yeah the death and enslavement of millions of people, and the increase in power to and insane and evil family isn't worth thinking about."

Hey there goes those Huns eating Babies in Saddam's rape rooms again.

It is not our problem. America can not be the policeman of the world. That's how you get Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands or perhaps even millions of dead if we go to a nuclear war with Korea.

So a bunch of Koreans are being held down by a crazy evil family? Let them rise up and gain their freedom on their own. That is the only way they will value it. If we expend American lives they will just spit in our face.

Hmmmm... I see your point. One might suppose that a regime that puts large numbers of its citizens into concentration camps and subjects the remainder to intense deprivation and even starvation while executing senior military officers for imaginary crimes with anti-aircraft guns is necessarily unstable, but they've been at it for three generations now, who's to say they won't make it to four? Nonetheless, I think the intelligence consensus has been that the regime is unstable, and past administrations have unwisely relied upon that as a justification for a wait-and-see approach to a deeply problematic situation.

In any case, the regime strikes me as deeply precarious, and I think it strikes KJU the same way. His apparent irrationality is partly just his personal insanity, but is also a result of the insane pressures he lives under. He has to know that he is surrounded by people who would love to kill him, which is why he kills so many of them. If you want to argue that this is his problem and not ours, well, OK. Until he gets those ICBMs working. What's that, a year? Or is it a month? Remember, the way he deals with anxiety is by killing unarmed people with military weapons.

What North Korean "interest" is served by continually provoking the US and South Korea?

The most obvious is for both extern and internal power dynamics, like pretty much every other country's foreign policy. I agree that internal dynamics are more inscrutable due to the high levels of secrecy and state control of the channels of communication. But it is clear that the North Koreans clearly do not desire a major war with the South. The South Koreans do not desire this, either. Thus they are locked in a tense battle.

But diplomatic engagement has failed just as miserably as sanctions. The previous "exchanges" did nothing to deescalate. SK tried sunshine.

Of course, the point of the previous exchanges was to prevent nuclearization. Now the goalpost are being moved to "limit" them. That is not encouraging.

It is not encouraging, but it is manageable. This is not a brand new development. North Korea has been a nuclear power now for more than a decade.

@Gahrie:

How about a billion a year,an NBA expansion team, most favored trading status, and they get to host the next world cup?

No, the really big chips to put on the table are removal of US troops from the DMZ, withdraw from the ROK-US mutual defense pact, and an end to joint military drills. Personally I'd be happy if all those occurred, but even if they didn't, they'd be a good carrot to dangle in front of the North. The notion that the North Koreans must commit to denuclearization before talks begin is an absurdity. Who would begin a negotiation by immediately conceding the most important point as a precursor?

It's just this type of tribalism that is most what is wrong with this world.

Complaining about "tribalism" makes about as much sense as complaining about testosterone and estrogen. It exists, and there is no sense of going away on any kind of meaningful timescale. I know this for one simple reason. Do you prioritize the welfare of your immediate family over the welfare of strangers? If so, you're tribal. Tribalism and political borders are the reason for the nation-state. A foreign policy based on a desire to eradicate tribalism would be the greatest folly we could engage in.

"it is manageable" As far as I can tell, no one is saying it isn't "manageable." The question is how to manage.

The point is that there is a new situation, the previous "exchanges" (among other steps) having failed to prevent nuclearization. The old policy failed in one of its primary goals; we have to learn from that failure. The calculations that informed the old deterrence have to change, as the risks have increased. The old policy failed in part for the main reason associated with the factor you have stressed (correctly), namely that regime survival is paramount. Nuclear weapons are a rogue regime's ultimate blackmail tool.

The problem is not simply one of weighing costs and benefits. The nature of the parties' preferences also comes into play. While our main preference is to avoid war and to avoid catastrophe for our friends in South Korea, we have a subsidiarily preference for a situation without blackmail, without threats, without the recurring cost of having to guard against NK--and, in view of the very negative opinion of the American public someone around here stressed, without a regime that turns its own country into a concentration camp. Doesn't mean we let our missiles fly tomorrow, but it does mean that "managing" the problem in a way that lets it fester is less than optimal.